Massachusetts Child Custody Determination Best Interest Parental Rights Lawyers Attorneys
JANET VERA CARR vs. ROBERT EARLE CARR.
The Father's Group, Inc., the Coalition for the Preservation of Fatherhood, and William L. Bruce filed briefs as amici curiae.
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
March 13, 1998, Decided
While the father recognizes that the best interests of the child is the proper standard to be applied in deciding custody issues under G. L. c. 208, § 31, he asserts that due process considerations require that a determination of a child's best interests must be based on the least intrusive interference with parental rights and that any limitation imposed upon parental rights must be based on a detailed demonstration of substantial harm to the child from the exercise of those rights.
Issue:
The court affirmed the family court's judgment and held that the family court judge neither abused his discretion nor applied an improper analysis in settling the custody issue in favor of the mother. The court held that the best interests of the child, including the child's happiness and welfare, was the proper standard to be applied in deciding custody issues under ch. 208, § 31.The court noted that the family court judge imposed no limitations upon the father's right to continue to provide academic stimulus or a course of study for the child and held that the family court's findings, which included the child's preference to remain with the mother, were amply supported by the record. Thus, the court held that sole custody was properly awarded to the mother under ch. 208, § 31 based on the family court's findings that the relationship of the parties was dysfunctional and one of continuous conflict.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
The Father's Group, Inc., the Coalition for the Preservation of Fatherhood, and William L. Bruce filed briefs as amici curiae.
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
March 13, 1998, Decided
While the father recognizes that the best interests of the child is the proper standard to be applied in deciding custody issues under G. L. c. 208, § 31, he asserts that due process considerations require that a determination of a child's best interests must be based on the least intrusive interference with parental rights and that any limitation imposed upon parental rights must be based on a detailed demonstration of substantial harm to the child from the exercise of those rights.
Issue:
- Whether the family court judge applied the wrong analysis in settling the custody issue and asserted that a determination of the child's best interests had to be based on the least intrusive interference with parental rights?
The court affirmed the family court's judgment and held that the family court judge neither abused his discretion nor applied an improper analysis in settling the custody issue in favor of the mother. The court held that the best interests of the child, including the child's happiness and welfare, was the proper standard to be applied in deciding custody issues under ch. 208, § 31.The court noted that the family court judge imposed no limitations upon the father's right to continue to provide academic stimulus or a course of study for the child and held that the family court's findings, which included the child's preference to remain with the mother, were amply supported by the record. Thus, the court held that sole custody was properly awarded to the mother under ch. 208, § 31 based on the family court's findings that the relationship of the parties was dysfunctional and one of continuous conflict.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content